One of the more intriguing questions which this massive and massively-researched volume will raise in the months and years to come is the degree to which it will be politicized, i.e., viewed as a salvo "in favor of" males in a gender war conceived by academic feminists as a marxist political-group war between oppressors and oppressed. Academic feminist scholarship explicitly has an activist political agenda, which means among other things that it opportunistically exploits the tolerance of the modern university in the name of pursuit of an ethic of truth-seeking in order to advance what can be called an ethic of power-seeking. In that context, "Legalizing Misandry" will be seen by academic feminists as "just another" (though necessarily formidable) blow aimed at resisting feminist attack strategy in behalf of the enemy (no quotes) male.
Perhaps the single most important thing Nathonson and Young do is refuse to draw back from saying that academic feminists--most of the feminists they discuss are professional scholar-teachers, most with PhDs--are unabashed hatemongers. In going so far they only stop short of annoncing that the "gender war" is in no way a metaphor, that feminists are just as determined to wreak damage on males as they contend males are determined to wreak on them.
In a way, it will be interesting to see just how far this gauntlet thrown down to academic feminists will be picked up by them and responded to. To admit that feminists are explicitly anti-male, for instance, is to open up the whole academic industry of "Women' Studies"--which includes the female professors who teach in them--to the charge that they violate federal, state, and institutional regulations against hostile environment sexual harassment. We may yet see female professors, and indeed female management types in the workplace, banished like males have been to the shadowy darkness of having sexual harassment charges on their resumes, with all the attendant difficulty of getting new jobs that this implies. It would indeed be ironic that feminists would suffer the same fate, since it was precisely feminist activists who formulated, brokered, and finally put into the U. S. code of federal regulations these very sexual harassment laws.
The tone of "Legalizing Misandry" is considerbly more outspoken, even edgy, by comparison with that of the preceding volume "Spreading Misandry." Clearly, the co-authors find themselves less able than previously to maintain the cold distance of investigative impersonality when dealing with the vast evidence that we have on our hands in Canada and U. S. nothing less than a civil war founded on gender. That it is a war--so far--without combat should not be allowed to dilute this characterization on the assumption that war is always combat. There's a difference--you can have one without the other--and that's what Nathanson and Young end up describing in overwhelming detail. It's a real war, and this book may go a considerable distance to persuading a critical mass of North American males finally to recognize that fact.